Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settl...

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

There are 929 comments on the The Washington Post story from Aug 17, 2014, titled Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#563 Aug 29, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
7:58 PM PDT.
And already drunk.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#564 Aug 30, 2014
When last I checked, even the US Supreme Court could reconsider issues they have previously ruled upon. Case in point, they ruled in 1896 that separate but equal satisfied the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equality under the law, but they reversed themselves in 1954.

You see, intelligent people continue to consider issue, while fools like Frankie reference the time, and make irrelevant arguments proving that they cannot count.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#565 Aug 30, 2014
lides wrote:
You see, intelligent people continue to consider issue, while fools like Frankie reference the time, and make irrelevant arguments proving that they cannot count.
Still clinging to your foolish numbers game! Incorrigible.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#566 Aug 30, 2014
lides wrote:
When last I checked, even the US Supreme Court could reconsider issues they have previously ruled upon. Case in point, they ruled in 1896 that separate but equal satisfied the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equality under the law, but they reversed themselves in 1954.
You see, intelligent people continue to consider issue, while fools like Frankie reference the time, and make irrelevant arguments proving that they cannot count.
When last I checked, even the US Supreme Court could reconsider issues they have previously ruled upon. Case in point, they ruled in 1878 that polygamy should not be allowed because of moral disapproval. Soon they will reverse that, because it's not a valid reason to deny marriage freedom.
You see, intelligent people continue to consider issue, while fools like lides says polygamists can't count good so they shouldn't have the same rights as he does.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#567 Aug 30, 2014
It doesn't mean the state has to recognize polygamous relationships, though. Try to have more than one legal spouse at a time and you'll be arrested for bigamy, which the decision didn't address.
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I have repeatedly stated that should those seeking plural marriage are successful, I would welcome them as fellow married families. I will not oppose them as they attempt to make their arguments. But don't expect me to independently take up their cause when the issue does not affect me, especially when I do not see any evidence of those that would benefit actually seeking those benefits.
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the way our legal system works is that those that are harmed by state actions must sue the state and force them to justify their laws. Same-sex marriage advocates have done that. I cannot take the state to court to overturn a plural marriage ban because I don't have standing.
I don't have any fears should plural marriage occur. But I haven't read anything from you that addresses why the 'state compelling interest' banning plural marriage are unconstitutional.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#568 Aug 30, 2014
In actual practice, polygamy requires a master and his/her servants. It's usually a male and two or more women with little self-esteem and who are brought up to believe they are supposed to obey their husbands. Be it mormon or muslim, it's NEVER a relationship based on equality.

Why would there be less incentive to cheat? You're only getting half a spouse's affection unless you're bisexual.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy requires a greater degree of maturity than monogamy. Polygamy cause less incentive and less appeal to cheat and have sex with others outside the marriage.
Monogamy GOOD!
Polygamy GOOD TOO!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#569 Aug 30, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
In actual practice, polygamy requires a master and his/her servants. It's usually a male and two or more women with little self-esteem and who are brought up to believe they are supposed to obey their husbands. Be it mormon or muslim, it's NEVER a relationship based on equality.
Why would there be less incentive to cheat? You're only getting half a spouse's affection unless you're bisexual.
<quoted text>
Just like the bigots before you, your sick twisted version of equal protection except for people you don't approve of is dead wrong.
Who are you to declare polygamists are bad people so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Who are you to declare who has poor self esteem? And why is self esteem a reason to not be allowed to marry? I'm sure your husband has low self esteem, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to marry you.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#570 Aug 30, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
In actual practice, polygamy requires a master and his/her servants. It's usually a male and two or more women with little self-esteem and who are brought up to believe they are supposed to obey their husbands. Be it mormon or muslim, it's NEVER a relationship based on equality.
Why would there be less incentive to cheat? You're only getting half a spouse's affection unless you're bisexual.
<quoted text>
Because cheating is usually just the thrill of a different partner.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#571 Aug 30, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It doesn't mean the state has to recognize polygamous relationships, though. Try to have more than one legal spouse at a time and you'll be arrested for bigamy, which the decision didn't address.
<quoted text>
That's another thing. Same sex marriages were simply not recognized. No harm no foul. But polygamous marriages are felonies subject to prison sentences. You support this barbarism. Throw good people in prison for their choice of consenting adult family style. And you cheer them on for doing it all the while demanding the same right for yourself.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#572 Aug 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Still clinging to your foolish numbers game! Incorrigible.
Yes. lides says some people should not be allowed to marry because they can't count good. And he says this with a straight face all the while demanding that same right for himself. I suppose he considers himself a good counter.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Juárez, Mexico

#573 Aug 30, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's another thing. Same sex marriages were simply not recognized. No harm no foul. But polygamous marriages are felonies subject to prison sentences. You support this barbarism. Throw good people in prison for their choice of consenting adult family style. And you cheer them on for doing it all the while demanding the same right for yourself.
Yet another lie. Other than their first wife they aren't married in the eyes of the law. Adulterers and often child rapists but unmarried under the law.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#574 Aug 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another lie. Other than their first wife they aren't married in the eyes of the law. Adulterers and often child rapists but unmarried under the law.
The bigots called you the same kind of nasty names and accused you of the same crimes just because you wanted to be allowed to marry who you loved. Now you are them, eh? You've come a long way baby.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#575 Aug 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
And already drunk.
I am drunk and you are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober but you'll be stupid for the rest of your life.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#576 Aug 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another lie. Other than their first wife they aren't married in the eyes of the law. Adulterers and often child rapists but unmarried under the law.
Bigamy is a crime in every state. No lie. You can go to prison. And people have.

You are ignorant and you treat people badly because of it. Where have we seen that before? You would be against some good peoples marriage just because you think it's icky. You have preconceived notions of other people's life choices and you're sticking to them. Common bigot.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Juárez, Mexico

#577 Aug 30, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigamy is a crime in every state. No lie. You can go to prison. And people have.
You are ignorant and you treat people badly because of it. Where have we seen that before? You would be against some good peoples marriage just because you think it's icky. You have preconceived notions of other people's life choices and you're sticking to them. Common bigot.
In order for it to be bigomy they would have to have legally married more than one wife at a time. Polygamists aren't as stupid as you. They only have ONE legal wife. Go put your head back in the bourbon bottle or where ever your currently keeping it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#578 Aug 30, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
In actual practice, polygamy requires a master and his/her servants. It's usually a male and two or more women with little self-esteem and who are brought up to believe they are supposed to obey their husbands. Be it mormon or muslim, it's NEVER a relationship based on equality.
Why would there be less incentive to cheat? You're only getting half a spouse's affection unless you're bisexual.
<quoted text>
If three men marry, how do they choose who is the master and who are the servants? How about if a woman and two men marry? How do they decide in Petey Happy Happy Wonderland?

How and why did you declare that polygamy requires a master and servants? Why doesn't SSM require a master and a servant? Why can two men be equal in a marriage but three cannot be equal? Why must they be a master and servants but two men don't have to be?

Alright PeteyBoo. I've given you a lot to think about. I hope you handle it well, but I doubt you will. Call me anti-gay if it makes you feel better.

SSM Good!
Polygamy BAD!

What about gay polygamy Pete? You never say. Is it OK 'cause it's gay?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#579 Aug 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for it to be bigomy they would have to have legally married more than one wife at a time. Polygamists aren't as stupid as you. They only have ONE legal wife. Go put your head back in the bourbon bottle or where ever your currently keeping it.
That's what we are arguing about dummy. Duh! I say polygamy should be legal, you say it should not be legal because it's against the law. That's circular logic. What a dope!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#580 Aug 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for it to be bigomy they would have to have legally married more than one wife at a time. Polygamists aren't as stupid as you. They only have ONE legal wife. Go put your head back in the bourbon bottle or where ever your currently keeping it.
Let me explain to you as the simpleton you are. I am arguing that it should be legal to marry MORE THAN ONE LEGAL WIFE at a time. Can you grasp this son?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#581 Aug 31, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain to you as the simpleton you are. I am arguing that it should be legal to marry MORE THAN ONE LEGAL WIFE at a time. Can you grasp this son?
And you said people who practice polygamy were being prosecuted and thrown in jail. Other than your good buddy and child rapist Warren Jeffs you're full of it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#582 Aug 31, 2014
The government is not in the habit of justifying domestic abuse. As I said, in practical application, polygamy is little more than indentured servitude based on cultural brainwashing and preying on those with esteem issues. Marriage under the law is--and must--be an equal partnership.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like the bigots before you, your sick twisted version of equal protection except for people you don't approve of is dead wrong.
Who are you to declare polygamists are bad people so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Who are you to declare who has poor self esteem? And why is self esteem a reason to not be allowed to marry? I'm sure your husband has low self esteem, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to marry you.
Your hypocrisy is showing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 8 min Alt Right Sucks 377
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 14 min Bob Zanotti 5,019
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 26 min Rose_NoHo 24,128
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min TomInElPaso 44,218
News Secret Service chief praises gay spies for putt... 1 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 2
News Gayborhood racism is long-standing, Philadelphi... 1 hr Farididdle 2
News Idaho man charged with federal hate crime in fa... 1 hr Farididdle 1
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 5 hr June VanDerMark 12,702
More from around the web